Reader views (26)

 Add your view

Prince Charles insisted that POUNDBURY PAVEMENTS should be covered in loose gravel chippings instead of slabs or solid Tarmac.
1) When it snowed the snow clearing lorries sucked half of it away.2) Young mothers can't push their children in thier buggies through gravel chippings.3) you can't carry heavy shopping bags along gravel chippings.4)Young Toddlers can't walk on gravel chippings 5)Adults and children can't cycle on gravel chippings 6)Tons of loose displaced gravel chippings are now pouring into drains, clogging and blocking them all up, which will certainly cause major flooding.
This is the Prime reason why you don't see ANY Pedestrians in Poundbury, but go to nearby Dorchester,look see, things are normal.
Charles is not in charge. lol

- Frank, Bristol UK

As is always the case, when Charles doesn't get his own way, he hides behind HIS charities and 'spits his dummy out!'

Viva la Republique

- Stephen Gerard Scullion, Felling, Gateshead, England

I do not think republicans generally fall into any political party, it is all about true democracy. The people who inhabit the British Isles do not have democracy. Afghanistan however flawed though their election has been have elected a Head of State, we are not allowed this privilege and have to rely on the lottery of hereditary. It is a lottery that will not work.

- Mikemo, Hitchin England

POUNDBURY FIRE STAION has just missed winning the 2009 "CARBUNCLE CUP",which is annualy awarded to the UK's 'newest ugliest building'.
A review about this which was the architecturely unqualified Prince Charles's first building he designed by himself, was described as
"a dumpy neo-classical Georgian palace with three modern garage doors attached to it".
....."It's the when the Parthenon meets Brookside"...
LOL

- Frank, Bristol

It's high time that Charles' quasi-political activity was formally investigated, especially when it's done under the cover of a charity.

if he wants a political career he should give up his hereditary claims and stand for parliament ...or is he scared to find out what the British public actually thinks of him.

- Clive, Battle, England

Residents have blasted Britain's Prince Charles model village,in Poundbury, Dorset.The town's population are complaining about life in the village designed to showcase the 60-year-old Prince Charles ideas about architecture and urban planning.
Many people say their houses and apartments are "not finished as well as they would have expected", while others say the pedestrian-friendly layout has "created a series of dark alleys and corners" and claim there are also growing problems with vandalism, crime and anti-social behaviour because of this.
When he stops pontificating, Prince Charles might learn that Architects have got to get QUALIFICATIONS in design,layout and enviroment...

- Frank, Bristol UK

Unelected Charles speaks on matters of which he is totally ignorant. When are the inhabitants of these islands going to wake up and declare a Republic? Hereditary monarchy does not work, the case for a Republic is overwhelming Charles constantly proves the case. I think he should be given more rope.

- Mikemo, Hitchin England

Why should we listen to this prize idiot pontificating?. He was born with a golden spoon in his mouth, but unfortunately left school with only one "0" Level.
This cretin does not possess a single academic qualification in Architecture either.
Still son, theres always Adult Educationl Classes...try it..its never too late to learn .......then people might begin to take you seriously... rather than laughing at you. NUMPTY.

- Frank, Bristol

London is a wonderfully diverse city that attracts visitors from all over the world, to keep it vibrant we need to encourage our modern architects. If Prince Charles had his way London would be full of boringly new pastiches of Georgian buildings, nothing wrong with the genuine article but the kind of stuff that he is responsible for, here in the West Country is very very boring and uninspiring. Why doesn’t he lend some of his weight to saving the Battersea Power Station one of two of London’s most iconic buildings the other being Bankside now gloriously refitted by Tate Modern? Both buildings designed by the same architect “Giles Gilbert Scott” Just think if PC had been around then I am sure he would have opposed them. We need to leave symbols of our age not pastiches of a bygone age

- Sharon Goodsall, Langport, Somerset

Anyone who thinks that the privileged buffoon Charles has any kind of insight into anything must be barking mad and equally privileged and blinkered. Take his newly-approved scheme for Kensington Palace, which looks like a bus shelter attached to a much loved friend's fizzog.

Charles' present wealth was created by citizens like us over hundreds of years - not 'Duchy Originals', Roz - which has been saved from going under by Waitrose. Citizens like us, working like slaves for his kind while being treated like medieval serfs in this repulsive class-ridden system we jokingly call a democracy.

The principle of leaving us to make our own decisions is far more important than whatever architecture we may or may not choose as citizens through democratic processes.

We definitely DON'T need the likes of the Windsors telling us how we should live and what we should build, or using their upper-class influence with sheikhs and tycoons who happen to be putting up the money. They are OUR cities and OUR spaces and it is we who should decide through a legitimate and transparent planning process.

... and no, I'm not a Communist either, or I'd have all upper-class twits shot. (Just a joke, everyone...)

- British Citizen, London, UK

You say that this investigation will embarass Prince Charles. I disagree because he has nothing to be embarassed about in defending the integrity of our architectural heritage. If the investigation has any affect at all it will only serve to increase the loathing many people feel towards the despicable Richard Rogers and the RIBA.

- Bob Burbridge, Shepherds Bush, UK

Steve, Raynes Park: it is true that France is a Republic well run by socialists: however most people have cited the cost of the Royal Family as a big reason for disposing of them: this is ironic as in France there has been a lot of hoo-hah about how much their President costs compared to the British Monarchy. An elected Head of State just moves the Prime Minister up one notch and makes the Deputy Prime Minister the Prime Minister: it does not mean that their position is uncorruptable or the population is better served. No system is perfect, but I look at the imperfect but cheap system of the House of Lords, which was changed because it was undemocratic to have an unelected Upper House, and I see it is now more costly and stuffed with the likes of Lord Rogers, who is also unelected but does donate to the Labour Party.

Prince Charles is not paid by the Government - his wealth is private and generated by, amongst other things, his company 'Duchy Originals'. The Chelsea Barracks scheme is a private one, so his input is not political. He could sit on his arse enjoying his wealth but instead he has dedicated his life to good causes. Last week he was visiting a centre for abused children in London which is supported the Prince's Trust: no-one said 'he hasn't done a 7 year degree in disadvantaged children, what does he know about it?' and no-one said he was abusing his position to raise the plight of those concerned . . . and no-one from 'Republic' said anything at all.

- Roz, France

A couple of years ago the Prince's Foundation was appointed, with geat hoo-ha, to draft a planning strategy for the High Street area of central Walthamstow. After a flurry of royal visits and glossy consultation exercises, it's all gone very quiet. A mystery to observers was why the adjacent Arcade development site, the prime site in the Borough, was deliberately excluded from the Foundation's remit: the reason was that the site was the subject of a proposal by St Modwen, who are also major sponsors of the Prince's Foundation.
Readers who have been interested to follow the relationships of the Phoenix Four with St Modwen, who have now pulled out of the Walthamstow scheme, leaving the site and the Borough high and dry, may share my opinion that HRH needs to be more selective in his choice of friends.

- Mdj , london uk

I agree with the investigation by the Charity Commission and I am not nor ever have been a communist.

- Martin, London UK

Good.I've had enough of his use of his position to promote his own views on anything from architecture to homeopathy. If he wants to patricipate in political lobbying then he should not be a member of the monarchy - its' that simple. Oh, and I am a member of Republic and am not a commie (present or past) a celebrity of standing AND I was born here. I just want to see an elected head of state. End of.

- Lmc, London, UK

I wasn't aware we live in a democracy. What's democratic about our system?? Globalisation is a process of abolishing freedoms, not advancing them.

- Neil, London, London UK

It seems to be a new culture in this country to pay excessive amount of money and shower with privilege, people who know little or nothing about the things they pontificate on. How much of his vast fortune does he give to his "charities", money he gets from the serfs of Cornwall in addition to what he gets from the rest of this country.

- Thomas Hayes, Leeds UK

When Britain's democratically elected leader does 'shady deals' releasing terrorists in exchange for private oil contracts the only thing that saves Britain's image abroad is the fact that the shady-deal-doer is just passing-through and a Monarch representing Britain's good standing in the world for several centuries is the actual Head of State. Powerless, of course, but a powerful symbol not to judge the British just by whichever politician is currently misrepresenting them.

- Roz, France

There is absolutely nothing democratic about the planning process in this country. If there was, Lord Rogers' hideous plans would never have got so far and dodgy supermarket planning applications up and down the country would never get a look-in. The planning process is notoriously corrupt and opaqe. There was (and is) a massive local campaign against the plans that were put in place. The media, Lord Rogers and the current owners of Chelsea Barracks seem to have completely ignored this and homed in on Prince Charle's comments; ignoring the fact that they mirrored local opinion in every respect. It's as if for them, the local people did not exist because the plans were only withdrawn once Prince Charles spoke not when we, the people opposed them. So the truth of the matter is that in speaking up, by supporint us, Prince Charles was supporting the democratic process, because he supported the view of the people in the area. In general I'm all for republic so it is with some sense of irony that I cannot deny that in this instance, Prince Charles's actions strenghtened democracy. I do not hold that opposing Lord Rogers is tantamount to oppposing democracy. He is just one person, right? It's clear that Rogers is typical of a breed of architect who think only their opinions matter, and not the peoples'. That he has the gall to accuse Prince Charles of undemocratic action is breathtaking

- Dom, London.

In a democracy, the citizens of a country must be able to elect a Head of State. Everything a royal family does is in support of its 'blood' line. A royal family is not interested in the fortunes of the country and people unless the ambitions of both coincide with the continuation of the family.

Prince Charles appears to be conscious of climate change and organic methods of farming yet experience of his architectural charity would suggest that he is only interested in maintaining the country in the state he and his family wishes it to be, in other words, as a country revelling in its former greatness under Queen Victoria.

Our country must move on. A country which stagnates in nostalgia will cease to have influence and relevance in the modern world. We must show that we are citizens, not subjects, that we need to have the power to elect and remove a Head of State in the same way we can elect and remove governments. We can only do that if we start taking full responsibility for ourselves and our country by electing a Head of State.

- Roger Ivan Hart, Deal, UK

Charles needs to choose between being heir to the throne or a a private lobbyist. If he chooses the former, then he needs to shut up: if it's the latter, he needs to stand on his own two feet, renounce his claim to the throne, give up his taxpayer-funded income, give us back our lands, and then see if anyone is interested in his sclerotic opinions anymore.

btw, Roz: I'm not and never have been a Communist, I'm a republican, just like most people in your chosen country of residence. Glass houses my dear, glass houses.....

- Steve, Raynes Park, London

It really is time to hold a national referendum and let the British people decide whether or not they want Charles Wales to be the next King of England for the rest of his natural life, or, elect a Head of State for a fixed term of office and who will be answerable to the Nation.

- Bushman Bob, Fleet, England

Not all people who refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Royal Family are Commies. I certainly am not, and I am a member of Republic. I simply refuse to accept that in a so-called modern democracy like the UK, someone should be allowed to enjoy huge privilege and wealth, and exercise great power, purely on the basis of some dodgy 'birthright' rather than any actual skill or evidence of ability. Where is Prince Charles' degree in architecture? Perhaps when he has studied for seven years (self-funded) then he can come back and pontificate on matters over which he should have no say.

Charities are not allowed to engage in political lobbying - as soon as they do, they forfeit their charitable status. The Charity Commission is simply doing its job by investigating on this occasion.

Think how many poor students could be put through university if taxpayers were no longer required to foot the bill for the likes of Prince Charles, not to mention the vast numbers of hangers on who make up the Civil List. I can't understand how, in this day and age and during a recession, so many people seem to think the Royal Family is still a justifiable expense.

- Ljw, London

The more transparent the royal family and its 1000-odd years of shady deals is made to become, the better!

- Wombat, Berkeley, UK

Charles uses his Royal position to influence his own pet likes and dislikes.

He knows that because he is in a position of power and is possible going to be king he will be able to set direction on senior government and industry figures. The palace honours system and personal connections have a lot to answer for.

Lets face it his last interest is in the people of this country, if it were all of the houses at Poundbury would be below £100K and offered only to low paid workers and any of his produce such as Dutchy Originals would for part of the supermarket economy range - no yet a again influencing for some private interest and not giving a damn about the consequences to other people.

Stick to what the Queen mother appeared to do best, look after you people, starting at the bottom !

- Red Rob, London

*Yawn!*

Britain has a democratically elected Prime Minister and Parliament - hasn't that caused enough havoc to be getting on with? 'Republic' - a private company operating as a charity, I believe - is a few dozen minor celebrities, a largish handeful of 'former' members of the Communist Party of Great Britain, several currant members of the Communist Party of Great Britain and a tedious list of people who were not born in the UK. If this comment is posted, no-doubt some 'anonymous' member of Republic will rail against me, a British-born subject who can document her ancestry for over 1,000 years - taking an interest in the legacy for my British children from the temporary residence of France, because their concept of democracy would leave people with an opposing view stripped of their democratic rights.

I wonder why instead of forming a private company, they didn't form a democratic political party to represent their views? Oh that's right, they did: The Communist Party of Great Britain! Of course, no-one voted for it so they have to try to influence public opinion with stunts like this instead. Graham Smith's quote that Prince Charles is "deliberately using the charity to usurp democratic planning" could equally be said of himself.

- Roz, France

Add your comment